posted at 10:41 am on January 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The thorny issue of how to deal with the chronic joblessness in the US will provide a dramatic moment this week on Capitol Hill. A bipartisan compromise between Nevada’s two Senators, Republican Dean Heller and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, will test GOP resolve on cutting off extended benefits after more than four years of extensions:

Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid said Sunday that he was hopeful that five Republican senators would join Democrats this week to revive a program of expanded benefits for the long-term unemployed.

But he could name only one GOP senator who was prepared to cross party lines: Dean Heller of Nevada, who is co-sponsoring the legislation.

“Dean Heller is not some maverick that is out spewing socialism,” Mr. Reid said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “He is really a conservative person.… Hopefully we can get four more Republicans.”

The expanded benefits program lapsed last month. The Senate could vote as soon as Monday on a plan to revive it for three months. Even if supporters find the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle, it is unclear that the House would take up the measure.

Nearly five million long-term unemployed people will lose benefits over the course of the year unless Congress revives the program, said Gene Sperling, director of the White House’s National Economic Council.

The 26-week period of benefits is not at issue in this debate. The budget compromise passed last month that was crafted by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray did not include an extension of the 99-week coverage added after the Great Recession, which was considered at the time a stop-gap measure intended as a bridge until the Democrats’ stimulus package revived job creation. When the Great Recession ended, the civilian workforce participation rate was 65.7%, but it dropped to a 36-year low of 62.8% in November before rising slightly to December’s 63.0%.

How long will taxpayers and states be expected to fund the extended UI program? Aloysius Hogan of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says it’s already been too long in a USA Today column:

Unemployment insurance extensions in the past five years have kept at least 600,000 people out of the labor force, because people tend to ride a gravy train. That’s the conclusion of analyses by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the National Bureau of Economic Research, respectively. The evidence is clear: Another extension of unemployment insurance would do more harm than good.

Even the recently departed chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, once understood the perverse incentives at play. Before working for the Obama administration, two of Krueger’s own analyses revealed that paying people not to work actually increases the incentive not to work. And that means more time spent unemployed.

Perverse incentives impact states, as well. Extended unemployment benefits are disproportionately transferred to high-unionization, high-unemployment states such as California, Michigan, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts. And that amounts to political cronyism. Politicians in those heavily Democratic states could be pals of the current administration, but those states have a record of failure in putting people to work.

The Club for Growth urges all Senators to vote “NO” on the motion to proceed to the Heller-Reed plan (S. 1845) to extend unemployment benefits for three months with no spending offset. Consideration of the bill will likely be today. The vote will be included in the Club’s 2014 Congressional Scorecard.

Congress should end the federal unemployment insurance program and return the authority back to the states, which already have programs in place. Absent this, Congress should pay for this extension by cutting spending elsewhere in the budget. After six years, an extension can no longer be called an “emergency” with any credibility. There is plenty of waste in the federal budget from which to find an offset.

Our Congressional Scorecard for the 113th Congress provides a comprehensive rating of how well or how poorly each member of Congress supports pro-growth, free-market policies and will be distributed to our members and to the public.

This leaves Republicans in a tight spot, though, especially in an election year in which they want to focus on the damage done to the middle class by ObamaCare. The federal benefit of 26 weeks should be more than sufficient in a healthy economy, but Republicans have been arguing (with very good reason) that a workforce ratio not seen since the Carter administration is anything but healthy, at least in terms of job creation. The GOP blames Obamanomics, the stimulus in particular, and especially ObamaCare as especially damaging to the middle class, but it’s going to be difficult to shift from that and explain why the economy is good enough to end the “temporary” extension.

The White House wants to make “income inequality” the issue for 2014, and they will point to any vote that defunds UI as part of a “war on the poor.” Republicans have countered that they will support another extension if Democrats offer a pay-for that doesn’t borrow money from the future or raise taxes any further — in other words, a balancing budget cut.Note well that the Club for Growth allows for that kind of compromise by endorsing (as a fallback) a spending-offset compromise. That demonstrates that they understand the political tightrope Republicans will have to walk on this issue.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I know a woman that was about to quit her job before having her baby. Instead, she was laid off less than a month before she was due. So, she was able to collect unemployment benefits until her baby’s second birthday without lifting a finger to find new work – since she didn’t want to work. All she had to do was log onto a website once per week.

This leaves Republicans in a tight spot, though, especially in an election year in which they want to focus on the damage done to the middle class by ObamaCare.

Well, given that the surrender weasels caved on the shutdown “because the focus should be on Obamacare.” They trashed military retirees and extended tax credits for illegals under Ryan/Murray because “averting shutdown and focusing on Obamacare” was the winning political strategy.

Given this reasoning, shouldn’t the GOP just agree to whatever the hell the Dems want except when it comes from Obamacare?

The fact of the matter is that both Dems and Republicans say that unemployment benefits shouldn’t be unlimited in duration. It is a matter of just how many weeks is “enough.” The GOP should make them give up a number. If not 26 weeks, just how many weeks is “enough” of a benefit.

We need input from people who are actually on unemployment and welfare to provide a man on the street feel to this problem, like the guy at the soup kitchen who humbly gathered his food and then snapped a pic of the First Lady serving the food with his sparkling new I-Phone.

did not include an extension of the 99-week coverage added after the Great Recession, which was considered at the time a stop-gap measure intended as a bridge until the Democrats’ stimulus package revived job creation.

We’ve been repeating “Stimulus” spending each year since the first one. It’s why Reid won’t pass a budget:

We need input from people who are actually on unemployment and welfare to provide a man on the street feel to this problem, like the guy at the soup kitchen who humbly gathered his food and then snapped a pic of the First Lady serving the food with his sparkling new I-Phone.

Bishop on January 6, 2014 at 10:59 AM

WaPo had one of those a couple weeks ago. The woman had been laid off from a receptionist job at a realtor’s office. Apparently, that’s such a technical job that a year of looking hasn’t netted her a single job offer (her claim). Something tells me that she wasn’t working all that hard of finding a new job. So now, she says that her benefits being cut off will mean she and her adult son (who shares an apartment with her) will be out on the street. Boo Hoo.

WaPo had one of those a couple weeks ago. The woman had been laid off from a receptionist job at a realtor’s office. Apparently, that’s such a technical job that a year of looking hasn’t netted her a single job offer (her claim). Something tells me that she wasn’t working all that hard of finding a new job. So now, she says that her benefits being cut off will mean she and her adult son (who shares an apartment with her) will be out on the street. Boo Hoo.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 11:05 AM

I should try to interview her, she might be one of the Chicago Welfare Road Warriors who fly up to MPLS every month to collect their Minnesota-issued checks.

Nothing brings a tear of humble joy to my eye quite like knowing I get raped on my taxes to help some poor schlub from Chicago pay for his gas money to keep his new Audi running.

HN…good one but the lsm will blame the gop instead of this administration

cmsinaz on January 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM

So what else is new? Hasn’t the GOP taken the blame for this kind of stuff for the last 70 years. Time to ignore the bait about “uncaring” Republicans and put the focus on the children being harmed by Democrats.

I mean, seriously, letting the unemployed have nearly TWO years on the public dole isn’t enough for Dems? How are they going to square this demand with the upcomind demand for amnesty? Doesn’t that kill jobs for the low-skilled folks who are sucking at the government teat?

It’s going to be fun seeing your rat-eared leader shuck and jive about income inequality even as the middle class is attacked by higher taxes, higher health insurance, limited economic opportunity. Just so a bunch of worthless parasites don’t have to contribute to society or die of starvation.

That demonstrates that they understand the political tightrope Republicans will have to walk on this issue.

Republicans can’t walk a tightrope because are spineless. Name your issue, this is what happens:
1. republican politicians will oppose it
2. they will scream and holler for days, go on talk shows, etc
3. deadline nears, “crisis” looming
4. crisis “inevitable” (oh noes!)
5. last minute “talks” (phew!)
6. republicans cave but they will call it “compromise reached”
7. democrats get their way
8. republicans will go on CNN/MSNBC and will find a way to use the phrase “tea party extremists”

And surprise, surprise, households that rely on the safety net lead some pretty frugal lifestyles. On average, they spend $30,582 in a year, compared to $66,525 for families not on public assistance. Meanwhile, they spend a third less on food, half as much on housing, and 60 percent less on entertainment.

They manage to spend almost half as much total as non-welfare recipients, reach 66% of the non-welfare food budget, and they still manage to match 40% on entertainment spending.

These figures, drawn from the 2011 Consumer Expenditure Survey, don’t capture all non-cash perks some low-income families get from the government, such as healthcare coverage through Medicaid. But they give you a sense of the kind of tight finances these families deal with.

You should show your gratitude better. The last one we threw ended the Democrats reign of slavery over you. You wouldn’t be free to be the crossdressing sicko you are today if it wasn’t for us..oh wait! LOL!

Shouldn’t the word “Christian” actually be used somewhere in the paper you cited?

rogerb on December 19, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I don’t have to prove that most Christians identify as murderers.

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Seriously, do you have any explanation for thinking that the paper you quoted proved your claim to the point of writing “And scene”?
Seriously, do you simply toss “any old thing” out as proof of something in your classes?

blink on December 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The gag is that you all took time to read it…..

libfreeordie on December 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM

So, you cited the paper as a gag? You didn’t cite the paper because you stupidly thought it proved your claim?

Notwithstanding that the chart comes from 2011 and we know that since then, millions more have been added to the rolls. This chart does nothing to refute anything. Liars..figures… some creative assembly. Even the footnotes readily admit that not all factors are included.

Since BLS is using the average family size of 3.7, there is no way I can believe that a family on assistance only spends $1,780/year on “other”.

To wit, a pack-a-day habit comes out to $1,460 at $4/pack. $20/wk on booze comes out to $1040. After the aforementioned, they still have to purchase other “others”. Color me skeptical, not to mention plenty of evidence that some of these recipients are double/triple-dipping their benefits & EBTs. For the survey to be true, it would necessaily mean there isn’t a big market for cashing in foodstamps at 2 to 1 etc.

Try to find something better — if you can, but you’ll understand that I won’t hold my breath.

The 26-week period of benefits is not at issue in this debate. The budget compromise passed last month that was crafted by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray did not include an extension of the 99-week coverage added after the Great Recession, which was considered at the time a stop-gap measure intended as a bridge until the Democrats’ stimulus package revived job creation. When the Great Recession ended, the civilian workforce participation rate was 65.7%, but it dropped to a 36-year low of 62.8% in November before rising slightly to December’s 63.0%.

Actually the 99-week funemployment (subsequently cut to 73 weeks total) happened in June 2008, with an expansion just after the 2008 election, extended in early 2009, further expanded in late 2009, and extended/modified no less than 8 times since late 2009.

Well, given that the surrender weasels caved on the shutdown “because the focus should be on Obamacare.” They trashed military retirees and extended tax credits for illegals under Ryan/Murray because “averting shutdown and focusing on Obamacare” was the winning political strategy.

Given this reasoning, shouldn’t the GOP just agree to whatever the hell the Dems want except when it comes from Obamacare?

The fact of the matter is that both Dems and Republicans say that unemployment benefits shouldn’t be unlimited in duration. It is a matter of just how many weeks is “enough.” The GOP should make them give up a number. If not 26 weeks, just how many weeks is “enough” of a benefit.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The funny (as a clown) thing is, El PRL has given their partners in the bipartisan Party-In-Government every single discretionary penny they asked for when they asked for it.

Compromise: What are the d-cRAT extremists willing to GIVE-UP to fund their voting-buying, unnecessary, wasteful, harmful gift of taxpayer money to let people get unemployment money for an excessively long period (making them LESS EMPLOYABLE) – even in the OBOZO economy that THEY SAY is “good.”?